Youth Justice News

Compiled by Tim Bateman

Youth Justice 10(3) 291301 The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1473225410385273 yjj.sagepub.com

Detected Offending by Children in England and Wales Falls by 14 Per Cent in Two Years
According to figures published by the Ministry of Justice, the number of offences committed by children below the age of 18 that resulted in a substantive youth justice disposal fell from 216,011 in 2006/07 to 184,880 in 2008/09, a decline of more than 14 per cent. As shown in Table 1, however, the fall should be seen in the context of a sharp rise over the previous three years and, as a consequence, the number of substantive disposals in 2008/09 was similar to that in 2003/04. The more recent trend follows the introduction of a government target to reduce the number of children entering the youth justice system for the first time, resulting in a substantial decline of just over 37 per cent in the number of 10 to 17 years receiving a reprimand, final warning or criminal conviction over the same period. In the six months April to September 2009, there were 34,152 first time entrants in England and Wales compared to 54,493 in the equivalent months of 2006 with an inevitable knock on effect for the overall number of disposals imposed. Despite the marked reduction in those coming to the attention of the youth justice system, resources available to youth offending teams has continued to expand. In 2008/09, the total partnership contributions to services to deal with children in trouble reached 275.8 million, an increase of four per cent over the previous year, and of 12 per cent since 2005/06. Such levels of funding would, however, appear to be unsustainable in the light of pending cuts to public sector budgets.
Table 1. Offences committed by children below the age of 18 years resulting in a substantive youth justice disposal: 2003/042008/09 Year Substantive disposals 2003/04 185,084 2004/05 195,483 2005/06 212,242 2006/07 216,011 2007/08 210,670 2008/09 184,850

Corresponding author: Dr Tim Bateman, Department of Applied Social Studies, University of Bedfordshire, Park Square, Luton LU1 3JU, UK. Email: tim.bateman@beds.ac.uk

292

Youth Justice 10(3)

Table 2. Number of curfew orders imposed on children below the age of 18 years: 2003/042008/09 Year Curfew orders 2003/04 3272 2004/05 4818 2005/06 5655 2006/07 7020 2007/08 8143 2008/09 8367

The overall fall in the volume of youth justice disposals has not been uniform across the range of outcomes. Thus the reduction in pre-court disposals (reprimands and final warnings) between 2006/07 and 2008/09 was almost 22 per cent, compared with an equivalent decline of just over 8 per cent in convictions. Over the same period, by contrast, the number of curfew orders imposed rose by 20 per cent, representing a continuation of a longer term trend shown in Table 2.
Figures for substantive youth justice disposals and youth offending teams budgets are given in Youth Justice Annual Workload Data 2008/09: England and Wales published by the Ministry of Justice, available at: www. justice.gov.uk/yjb-workload-data-2008-09.pdf Figures for the number of children entering the youth justice system for the first time are given in Youth Crime:Young People Aged 10-17 Receiving their First Reprimand,Warning or Conviction Six Monthly Figures to September 2009: Statistical release 12/2010, published by the Department for Education, available at: www. dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d000933/OSR12-2010.pdf

Possession of Firearms Involving Young People in England Falls by 30 Per Cent

According to figures on 27 July 2010 provided by Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Prisons and Probation) in answer to a Parliamentary Question the number of young people aged 1319 years prosecuted for firearms offences in England has fallen in recent years. As shown in Table 3, between 2005 and 2008, there was a reduction in court proceedings for such offences of more than 30 per cent. Statistics published by the Ministry of Justice also show a decline in possession of knives or other offensive weapons by children aged 1017 years in the most recent two years for which data are available. Across England and Wales, the number of disposals imposed for such offences was: during quarter one of 2008, 1631; quarter one of 2009, 1416; and quarter one of 2010, 991. Despite the fall, knife possession has tended to attract increased levels of punishment. While during 2008 47 per cent of offences were dealt with by way of a pre-court disposal, the equivalent figure for 2010 was 30 per cent. The proportionate use of fines and discharges fell from 3.4 to 1.8 per cent. By contrast, there has been a substantial

Table 3. Number of persons aged 13 to 19 years proceeded against at magistrates courts in England for firearm possession offences: 20052008 Year Proceedings 2005 919 2006 758 2007 832 2008 635

Bateman

293

expansion in the proportion of offences leading to a community sentence, from 42 to 57 per cent. Custodial outcomes also increased slightly from 5.8 to 6.2 per cent. This shift in the pattern of disposal is largely a consequence of a Court of Appeal judgement from 2008 indicating that, because of prevalence, knife crime possession offences should generally attract imprisonment. The Sentencing Guidelines Council has subsequently clarified that the starting point for the lowest level of knife possession should be 12 weeks custody for adults, but that this should not apply to defendants below the age of 18 years. It seems likely that this advice to the courts has gone some way to mitigate the potential impact of the judgement on children.
The Secretary of States answer is given at Hansard, House of Commons, Column 923W, 27 July 2010 Outcome data for possession of knives and other offensive weapons is given in Knife possession Sentencing Quarterly Brief, January to March 2010: England and Wales, published by the Ministry of Justice and available at: www.justice.gov.uk/knife-possession-sentencing-bulletin-jan-march-10.pdf

Residential Intervention for Young People at Risk of Offending into their Adulthood in New Zealand Found to Provide A Valuable Treatment Model
Te Hurihanga (the Turning Point) is a three-year pilot programme sponsored by the New Zealand Ministry of Justice in response to concerns about a perceived rise in youth crime. It aims to provide an additional option for courts in dealing with children whose behaviour suggests that they will continue to offend into adulthood. The programme, which operates from a specially designed residential facility located in Hamiltons Te Ara Hou village, consists of three phases, each of which lasts between three and six months: A residential phase during which the children live in the unit and receive education and activities on site; A transition phase during which programme participants are gradually reintegrated into mainstream education, training or employment while continuing to reside at the project under high although reduced levels of supervision. During this phase there is potential for children to work towards weekend and overnight stays in their home environment; A community phase during which children are returned home to live full-time within the community. Support from programme staff is provided to parents and other family members to enhance their capacity to deal with problematic and challenging behaviours and to help them build on the progress achieved during earlier phases. Recognizing the significant overrepresentation of Maori young people in the youth justice system, the programme has a bicultural dimension to ensure that cultural values are embedded in each of the three phases and young peoples cultural identity is respected and strengthened.

294

Youth Justice 10(3)

Admission is restricted to local boys aged 1416 years who: Have been assessed as representing a high risk of recidivism; Have previously appeared in court; Are sufficiently motivated to complete the programme and have the academic ability to do so; Have a carer able to act as main line of support. Children with unstable mental health conditions and those who have committed serious violent or sexual offences are excluded. A two-year evaluation of the pilot, conducted by the Centre for Research, Evaluation and Social Assessment, concluded that the programme had brought together a staff team with the requisite skills and experience to address the needs of young people who offend in an holistic fashion. As a consequence, there was considerable scope to use the teams expertise more widely to develop best practice in services targeting high risk young people. During the evaluation, 17 young people had accessed the programme, of whom most identified as being of Maori or Maori/ New Zealand European origin. Eight were current participants, four had successfully completed the programme, and five had terminated early. In terms of intermediate outcomes such as improved family relations, educational attainment, reduced alcohol and substance misuse, improved mental health, enhanced life skills and strengthened cultural identity the evaluation found that participants had consistently made progress. The ultimate aim of the programme was to promote complete desistance from crime, or reduced frequency and seriousness of offending. Because of the low number of completions, it was not possible to determine whether intervention had achieved these goals, but there were some positive indications. Three out of the five young people who exited the programme early had not reoffended in the period since leaving. None of the four boys successfully completing the programme had offended since graduation at the time of data collection which in three cases allowed a follow up period of six months or more. The findings thus provide some confidence that programme outcomes are being achieved [although in relation to offending] these indications are very preliminary and need to be treated with considerable caution. Encouragingly, young people themselves and their families believed that they would not reoffend. Although the development of the Te Hurihanga project was a response to a perception of increasing levels of youth crime, official data do not provide a straightforward evidential base that there has been a rise in offending by young people. According to figures published by the Ministry of Justice, police apprehensions of children aged 1013 years fell from 543 per 10,000 population in 1996 to 336 in 2008. The equivalent figures for those aged 1416 years were 1926 and 1572 respectively. (An apprehension is recorded in cases where there has been a police intervention in relation to an offence. It need not, however, involve an arrest and, given the emphasis on diversion, most cases are resolved without recourse to court proceedings or a youth justice family group conference.) By

Bateman

295

contrast, the same data indicate a rise in the rate of offences resulting in a youth court order, from a low of 41 per 10,000 population in 1992 to a high of 67 in 1999. The rate in 2008 was 64 per 10,000 population. The divergence between the two trends suggests a greater use of court proceedings despite the lower levels of police activity in response to offences committed by children and young people. This might help to account for the perceived increase in levels of youth crime.
Te Hurihanga Pilot: Evaluation Report, by Julie Warren with Lydia Fraser, is published by the Centre for Research, Evaluation and Assessment and is available at: www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/te-hurihanga-pilot-evaluation-report/documents/ Te%20Hurihanga%20Pilot%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf Trends in police apprehension and court orders are given in An Overview of Child and Youth Offending Statistics in New Zealand: 1992 to 2008, published by the Ministry of Justice and available at: www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/c/child-and-youth-offending-statistics-in-new-zealand1992-to-2008/statistical-bulletin-an-overview-of-child-and-youth-offending-statistics-in-new-zealand-1992to-2008#introduction

Children Convicted in Adult Courts in the United States have Higher Rates of Recidivism than those Adjudicated in Juvenile Courts
From the 1980s onwards, many states in the United States have revised their waiver or transfer laws to relax the circumstances under which a child might be transferred from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for trial and sentence in the adult criminal court. Typically, such reforms have lowered the age at which a transfer decision might be made or widened the range of eligible offences. As a consequence the number of young people subject to a judicial waiver rose sharply, by 81 per cent, between 1985 and 1994. In the period to 2007, however, there has been a reversal of that trend with the number of waivers falling, by 35 per cent, to 8500. Much of the recent reduction is a consequence of a fall in the overall caseload of the juvenile court by 11 per cent from a peak in 1997. However, part of the decline can also be attributed to an increase in legislation that allows certain cases involving children to be sent directly to the adult court, bypassing the juvenile court altogether. There has been a shift in the nature of cases leading to transfer, with offences against the person, drugs offences, and public order matters all rising as a proportion of the total cases subject to judicial waiver. At the same time, girls and children below the age of 16 years have been progressively more likely to be transferred to the adult court as shown in Table 4. Data for 1994 is presented as representing the peak year for the number of judicial waivers. Where a young person is tried in the adult court, the procedures and available sentences in the event of a conviction are the same as for defendants over the age of 18 years. A custodial sentence results in committal to an adult prison and typically, children subject to waiver receive longer sentences than those dealt with for equivalent matters in the juvenile courts.

296

Youth Justice 10(3)

Table 4. Young people transferred to the adult criminal court by age and gender for selected years Year Total cases waived Girls as proportion of total Children aged 15 years or younger as proportion of the total 1985 7200 5% 7% 1994 13,100 5% 13% 2007 8500 10% 12%

The rationale for the expansion in the range of cases that can be dealt with in the adult court is that it will deter young people from offending and result in reduced rates of recidivism. However a recent review of the literature, published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, questions whether such outcomes are associated with increased waiver. While there is evidence that higher rates of arrest may be correlated with reductions in offending, the relationship between increased severity of sanction and levels of delinquency is much less clear. As the review notes:
The limited empirical research on the general deterrent effect of juvenile transfer is somewhat inconsistent and does not permit strong conclusions. The bulk of the evidence suggests that transfer laws, at least as currently implemented and publicized, have little or no general deterrent effect in preventing serious juvenile crime.

In part, at least, this finding reflects the fact that few children who commit offences that may be subject to judicial waiver are aware that they might be tried and sentenced as adults. If the evidence in relation to general deterrence is ambiguous, it is less so with regard to individual deterrence. Six published studies have examined the impact of transfer as measured by recidivism rates of the children subject to it; each has found higher rates of reoffending for children dealt with in the adult courts, although findings were not so pronounced in relation to property offending. One of the more recent studies reported that young people in Florida transferred to the adult court were significantly more likely to reoffend (49 per cent) than those retained by the juvenile system (35 per cent). The correlation was found for all offence types but was particularly strong where the index offence involved violence against the person. The literature review outlines a number of reasons for higher rates of recidivism among those tried as adults. These include: The stigma associated with labelling juveniles as convicted felons; A sense of resentment and injustice on the part of those tried as adults; A contamination effect from being incarcerated with adult offenders; A decreased emphasis on rehabilitation and family support as a consequence of removal from the juvenile court.

Figures for throughput of the juvenile court are given in Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court 2007, by Crystal Knoll and Melissa Sickmund, available at: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/230168.pdf

Bateman

297

Figures for cases waived to the adult court are given in Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 2007, by Benjamin Adams and Sean Addie, available at: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/230167.pdf The review of research on the relationship between deterrence and juvenile waiver is contained in Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?, by Richard E Redding, available at: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ ojjdp/220595.pdf

Evaluation of Intensive Fostering in England and Wales, Finds That it May Be a Better Alternative to Custody
The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 provided that children could be required to reside in foster care as an alternative to custody for a period of up to 12 months where the court considered that their offending behaviour was due to a significant extent to home circumstances. With the abolition of the supervision order and all other community orders by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the fostering provisions (known as intensive fostering) were replicated as a requirement of the new youth rehabilitation order. From 2005 onwards, centrally funded intensive fostering pilots were established on three sites in Wessex, Staffordshire and London. It was determined that each of the schemes should adopt the multi-dimensional treatment foster care model developed in the United States by the Oregon Social Learning Centre. The model adopts a whole team approach: while children live with their foster carers, they and their families receive support and intervention from a range of professionals including an individual worker, a skills coach, a parenting worker and a family placement social worker. Decisions about the case are taken by a programme supervisor rather than staff who work face-to-face with the young people on a daily basis. An evaluation of the pilot schemes, conducted on behalf of the Youth Justice Board, commenced in 2006 and took as its sample the first two cohorts of young people. The authors of the report, published in July 2010, acknowledge a number of limitations of the study. The sample size was relatively small, comprising of 23 children sentenced to intensive fostering, of whom 18 successfully completed the programme. The remaining five children were breached, in most cases as a consequence of absconding, and did not complete their sentence. There were some problems of implementation in the early stages, including difficulties in two of the sites in attracting referrals and issues in relation to staff recruitment. Projects typically found engaging parents in therapeutic work one of the more difficult aspects of the programme to implement successfully. Further, many of the procedures and working arrangements were in development during the course of the evaluation so that programme delivery is likely to have evolved, and model fidelity improved, in the subsequent period. Nonetheless, the evaluation does provide grounds for cautious optimism. Compared to a comparison sample of children sentenced to custody or intensive supervision and surveillance, the intensive fostering group were considerably more likely to be in education, training, or work one year after sentence completion or

298

Youth Justice 10(3)

release from custody (72 per cent against 30 per cent). More than half of those subject to fostering were living with their families against one-third of the comparison group, and subsequent experience of custody was significantly lower. Detected offending was also reduced at least in the short term. In the year after sentence or release from custody, 48 per cent of children in the fostering group were reconvicted of any offence (including breach) compared to 79 per cent in the comparison sample. The former also committed five times fewer offences during this period, and the average severity of offending was lower. However, reconviction rates rose significantly in the year after completing the fostering placement to 74 per cent, similar to that of the comparison group. The authors of the study note that this similarity in the subsequent criminality of the [fostering] group is further evidence that the reduction in their propensity to commit offences while in foster care was real. This pattern of offending might be thought indicative of insufficient attention being paid to aftercare and the evaluation confirmed that many families were unhappy with the level of support they received once the case was transferred from fostering providers back to the youth offending team. The report recommends that mechanisms for providing improved long-term support need to be in place if gains made by children while in placement are to be sustained. At the time of writing, despite the broadly positive messages from the evaluation, the future of intensive fostering is unclear. The provision is available to courts only in the pilot areas and there are currently no plans for national roll out.
A report on the intensive fostering pilot programme, published by the Youth Justice Board, is available at: www. yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/A%20Report%20on%20the%20Intensive%20Fostering%20 Pilot%20Programme.pdf

Public Confidence in the Youth Justice System in England and Wales Improves but Remains Relatively Low
The British Crime Survey includes questions designed to elicit public opinion on the operation of the criminal justice system. Between 2002/03 and 2007/08, the proportion of respondents indicating that they were very or fairly confident that the system was effective in bringing to justice people who commit crimes rose from 39 to 44 per cent. Additional measures of public confidence also showed improvements. In 2007/08, for instance, 80 per cent of survey participants thought that people accused of crime were treated fairly compared with 77 per cent in 2002/03; the equivalent figures for the extent to which respondents regarded the system as effective in reducing crime were 38 and 31 per cent respectively. Confidence in the operation of the youth justice system although significantly improved was lower than for any of the other measures included in the survey. As shown in Table 5, just one in four respondents was confident or fairly confident that the criminal justice system was effective in dealing with young people accused of crime. More than

Bateman

299

Table 5. Confidence in the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in dealing with young people accused of crime: 2007/08 Degree of confidence Not at all confident Not very confident Fairly confident Very confident Percentage of respondents 21 54 22 2

Table 6. Proportion of respondents indicating that different agencies were doing a good or excellent job: young people aged 1624 years and all respondents: 2007/08 Agency Proportion of respondents indicating approval of performance Young people aged 1624 Police Prisons Magistrates Probation CPS Judges Youth court 51% 27% 44% 33% 42% 43% 30% All respondents 53% 25% 31% 23% 30% 30% 16%

one in five were not at all confident. At the same time, only four per cent of participants considered that responding to youth crime should be the systems highest priority. Ratings of different parts of the criminal justice system also showed slight improvements for most agencies over the period. The police remained the most highly rated group with 53 per cent of respondents indicating that they were doing a good or excellent job, an increase from 48 per cent in 2002/03. Magistrates, the Crown Prosecution Service, and judges all attracted an approval rating of around 30 per cent; prisons and probation came somewhat lower. The youth court remained the poorest rated agency with just 16 per cent considering that it did a good or excellent job, a slight rise of two per cent over 2002/03. Non-victims were more likely to rate each agency higher than those who had experienced victimization within the past twelve months, although the difference was only significant in the case of judges. Ratings also varied considerably by age. Young people aged 16 to 24 years, for instance, gave a higher rating than other age groups for each agency except the police. As shown in Table 6, 30 per cent of younger respondents considered that the youth court was doing a good or excellent job, a higher approval rating than for prisons.
Public Confidence in the Criminal Justice System: Findings from the British Crime Survey 2002/03 to 2007/08, by Dominic Smith, is published by the Ministry of Justice and is available at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/confidence-cjs-british-crime-survey.pdf

300

Youth Justice 10(3)

South Africa Introduces a Dedicated Justice System for Children

The Child Justice Act 2008, which was implemented in April 2010, introduces a distinct youth justice system for children in conflict with the law. The Act raises, from 710 years, the age of criminal responsibility and retains a rebuttable principle of doli incapax for children younger than 14 years: a child is presumed not to have criminal capacity unless it can be otherwise demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. The decision is taken by an inquiry magistrate or a court who can order a specialist assessment of the childs development in appropriate cases. A child accused of an offence is required to attend a preliminary inquiry within 48 hours unless the prosecutor has already diverted the case. The inquiry is chaired by a magistrate and its purpose is to determine whether a diversion order should be made or the matter referred to the child justice court for plea and trial. Where the child accepts the offence, diversion activities can be ordered at two levels depending upon the seriousness of the offence. Activities can range from a caution without conditions for minor infractions, to compulsory attendance at therapeutic programmes, including a residential component, for higher level offending. Hearings in the child justice court are held in private and the childs identity is protected. Notwithstanding the decision of the preliminary inquiry to refer the case, the court may decide to make a diversion order. In that event, proceedings are postponed pending the childs compliance. Where the case proceeds to conviction, the objectives of sentencing include: Encouraging the child to understand the implications of his or her behaviour; Promoting the childs reintegration into the family and community; Ensuring any necessary supervision or treatment to facilitate rehabilitation. The court may impose a sentence of compulsory residence in a child or youth care centre on younger children, or where the child is aged 14 years or over may order a term of imprisonment. The latter can be imposed only as a matter of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period.
Details of the reformed South African youth justice system are given in Getting to Know the Child Justice Act, by Jacqui Galinetti, published by the Child Justice Alliance and available at: www.childjustice.org.za/ publications/Child%20Justice%20Act.pdf

Youth Offending Teams in England and Wales Propose the Equivalent of More than 12 Per Cent of Custodial Sentences
According to figures published by the Ministry of Justice, pre-sentence reports prepared by youth offending team staff proposed custody on 822 occasions during 2008/09, considerably more than the 595 recommendations for a fine or a discharge and representing more than one in twelve of all sentences of detention imposed. Custodial proposals were

Bateman

301

unsurprisingly more likely to be accepted by the court than any other, generating a concordance rate of 89 per cent. Conversely, in 11 per cent of cases where youth justice practitioners endorsed imprisonment, sentencers determined that a non custodial disposal was appropriate. The least popular proposal with the judiciary was deferred sentence, with just 14 per cent of such recommendations agreed by the court.
Figures for sentences proposed and concordance rates are given in Youth Justice Annual Workload Data 2008/09: England and Wales published by the Ministry of Justice, available at: www.justice.gov.uk/yjbworkload-data-2008-09.pdfwww.justice.gov.uk/yjb-workload-data-2008-09.pdf

More than One in Three 1624 Year Olds with No Qualifications in England and Wales Do Not Have any Educational Provision, Employment or Training
As a consequence of the recession, the proportion of graduates not in education, employment or training (NEET) has risen by 52 per cent in two years. However, analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that while the risk of this group becoming NEET has increased most rapidly, it remains substantially below that for other groups. Focusing on the rise for those with higher level qualifications is accordingly missing the bigger picture. In the first quarter of 2010, 36.1 per cent of young people aged 1624 years with no qualification were without educational provision or employment. As shown in Table 7, the impact of the recession for such young people has been relatively limited, as more than one in three was NEET before it struck. The authors of the analysis conclude that this suggests a long-term problem whose route [sic] causes are not connected to the recent economic upheaval.
Table 7. Proportion of young people aged 1624 years who are not in education, training or employment by highest level of qualification Highest qualification Quarter 1 2008 Quarter 1 2010 11.4% 16.1% 36.1% Percentage point change 3.9 2.1 1.5 Percentage change 52 15 4.3

Degree 7.5% Low level qualification 14% None 34.6%

The analysis of young people not in education, employment of training is given in YouthTracker, Issue 4, Summer 2010, published by the Institute of Public Policy Research and the Private Equity Foundation, and available at: www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=770